Author
Topic: Western Rite ROCOR? (Read 12640 times)

I don't know much about ROCOR, and there is no such church anywhere near where I live. So all I know about ROCOR is what I read online. What I've learned from that is that most of their churches are firmly committed to preserving Russian culture and using the Slavonic language in their liturgy. They are opposed to any liturgical changes embraced by other jurisdictions (such as eliminating the prayers of the catechumens, etc.).

Yet they allow western-rite Orthodox churches, unlike the Greek church, the OCA, the Serbian church etc. How is this possible? Can someone give me details about this? Is anyone here a member of a western rite ROCOR church, in the US or elsewhere?

Please understand: I'm not passing judgement here. But from what I know about various Orthodox jurisdictions, if you had asked me which church would champion the restoration of western rite Orthodoxy, the ROCOR would not have been my first guess.

ROCOR has a growing number of parishes and monasteries of the Western Rite in America, Canada, Australia, and interest in Europe. In a way, it's natural, since the Russian Church has been involved in discussion and action on Western Rite restoration since the beginning in the late 19th century.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I don't know much about ROCOR, and there is no such church anywhere near where I live. So all I know about ROCOR is what I read online. What I've learned from that is that most of their churches are firmly committed to preserving Russian culture and using the Slavonic language in their liturgy. They are opposed to any liturgical changes embraced by other jurisdictions (such as eliminating the prayers of the catechumens, etc.).

Yet they allow western-rite Orthodox churches, unlike the Greek church, the OCA, the Serbian church etc. How is this possible? Can someone give me details about this? Is anyone here a member of a western rite ROCOR church, in the US or elsewhere?

Please understand: I'm not passing judgement here. But from what I know about various Orthodox jurisdictions, if you had asked me which church would champion the restoration of western rite Orthodoxy, the ROCOR would not have been my first guess.

Well the ROCOR you describe doesn't sound like the ROCOR with which I'm familiar. I suppose it varies greatly according to region. Some parishes are predominantly made up of converts who will adopt the liturgical language to a greater or lesser degree. I, for one, see the use of a liturgical language as a restoration of part of the Orthodox heritage of the west which was lost after the reformation, and not something specifically part of Russian culture (although the particular language may have come from there). I like that I can go to my local Serbian Church or a Russian church in Paris, New York, Moscow, Lisbon, and still be able to follow the service and join in in a way that I would not if everything were done in the vernacular - this is how things used to be in the west before the protestant revolt, which led to people feeling excluded if the language of worship was not their spoken language. The cathedral in this diocese is mostly Slavonic with a little bit of English. My parish is a about 80:20 English:Slavonic. Another parish I know is 50:50 but they vary week by week which 50% will be done in which language, so people can understand in English and have an opportunity to learn the Slavonic. Of the other two ROCOR parishes plus the monastery in this part of the world, all three serve 100% in English. The Western Rite mission here serves 100% in English. Of those communities, only the cathedral has strong elements of Russian culture but that is purely because this is the culture of London Orthodoxy and isn't due directly to it being ROCOR. London has many people from all over the world, so Russian people tend to gravitate towards Russian churches, Greek people to Greek churches, Arabs to Antiochian churches, and so forth. The Greek and Antiochian dioceses are the same: in London their cathedrals are very Greek/Arabic but as you move away from the capital you get more of a mix.

As for liturgical innovation, yes, ROCOR has traditionally been good at keeping the old ways - it was only three years ago that all of our bishops were finally granted permission to wear the jewelled cross on their mitres, which was previously reserved to metropolitans and above but which other local churches adopted for all bishops years ago. You will still see ROCOR bishops sometimes serve in their older mitres, without the cross. I see these differences even when I serve in the Sourozh Diocese and observe some of the newer Russian customs which appear to have bypassed the Church Abroad - just small insignificant things that you wouldn't notice unless you're a bit of a rubricist. Of course, the Western Rite is seen more as a restoration than an innovation. If anything, the accusation levelled against the Western Rite is not that it is something new but that its use in Orthodoxy is liturgical archaeology. The merits of that argument aren't the subject of this thread but that alone suggests that it isn't out of keeping with a liturgically traditional jurisdiction. As has been pointed out, the Russian church has at least theoretically approved the Western Rite since the 19th century, long before the Western Rite was even a twinkle in the eye of the Antiochian, Serbian, or Romanian churches, and the Russian church has continuously had Western Rite communities for about three quarters of a century. If anything, it seems natural that ROCOR would be part of this, and I'm more surprised that anybody would be surprised at this but, as you say, your experience of the Church Abroad comes from reading things online, which can be reflective of the narrow experience of the author, which is how I implore you to read my post.

As for OCA, Metropolitan Jonah has not ruled out the possibility of the Western Rite. I think it was ACNA that was had in mind at the time, although they seem to have taken a strange path so that my not come to fruition soon. The Serbian church permits occasional celebrations of the Western Rite in France. The Romanian church has had Western Rite parishes in the past. And we all know of the Western Rite presence under Antioch.

I hope this helps a little.

In Christ,Michael

« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 01:58:50 PM by Subdeacon Michael »

Logged

'There is nothing upon earth holier, higher, grander, more solemn, more life-giving than the Liturgy. The church, at this particular time, becomes an earthly heaven; those who officiate represent Christ Himself, the angels, the cherubim, seraphim and apostles.' - St John of Kronstadt

As for OCA, Metropolitan Jonah has not ruled out the possibility of the Western Rite. I think it was ACNA that was had in mind at the time, although they seem to have taken a strange path so that my not come to fruition soon. The Serbian church permits occasional celebrations of the Western Rite in France. The Romanian church has had Western Rite parishes in the past. And we all know of the Western Rite presence under Antioch.

What do you mean by the ACNA taking a strange path? What are they up to?

As for OCA, Metropolitan Jonah has not ruled out the possibility of the Western Rite. I think it was ACNA that was had in mind at the time, although they seem to have taken a strange path so that my not come to fruition soon. The Serbian church permits occasional celebrations of the Western Rite in France. The Romanian church has had Western Rite parishes in the past. And we all know of the Western Rite presence under Antioch.

What do you mean by the ACNA taking a strange path? What are they up to?

My information is purely second-hand and comes only from those in the colonies who follow these things but I am given to understand that they have embraced something of a Calvinistic influence and, as far as the difficulties of Anglicanism go, seem content to turn the clock back a mere few years, before certain current arguments over sexuality. This is problematic in any discussion about union with the Church as it leaves anti-sacramentalist elements, the double-procession of the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology that is not in keeping with ancient scriptural and patristic witness, among other things. There is also the curious adoption of four ecumenical councils. My understanding had been that Anglican understanding refers to and acknowledges "the councils" but had historically been reluctant to explicity state whether that meant all or just some, and if the latter, which. I was going to post to say that ACNA's explicit numbering of only the first four councils seems interesting in light of that. However, checking their new website, their theological statement appears to have been amended, now adding "and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures." This seems a move in the right direction at least.

I continue to hope for progress but my enthusiasm at having seen the reaction to Metropolitan Jonah's initial address has waned somewhat.

In Christ,M

Logged

'There is nothing upon earth holier, higher, grander, more solemn, more life-giving than the Liturgy. The church, at this particular time, becomes an earthly heaven; those who officiate represent Christ Himself, the angels, the cherubim, seraphim and apostles.' - St John of Kronstadt

ROCOR does indeed have the Western Rite - it is largely led by three Western Rite monasteries. I am the head of one such monastery and the Primate of ROCOR has personally placed me in charge of stavropigial Western Rite missions in the British Isles. We presently have Western Rite missions in Canada, the USA, the Philippines, Australia and England. There are non-monastic parishes in the USA which answer directly to the Metropolitan or Bishop Peter. ROCOR can do this because ROCOR is strongly bound to Orthodox tradition - and Orthodoxy had Western Rite within its boundaries for much longer than it was absent. It was only absent from approximately 1300 to 1870. Always remember that one of the great founding monasteries of Mount Athos was Amalfion - a Western Rite monastery.

I don't know much about ROCOR, and there is no such church anywhere near where I live. So all I know about ROCOR is what I read online. What I've learned from that is that most of their churches are firmly committed to preserving Russian culture and using the Slavonic language in their liturgy.

In the US there are a number of English language mission parishes which are typically led by non-Russian convert priests, but in almost every case it is only the language that is different in these parishes. ROCOR has actually led the way in translating services into English for use in parishes and is the only jurisdiction I am aware of in the US that has translated and published the entire Menaion and Octoechos in English, among other important texts. Most of the parishes in the US and abroad are probably Slavonic but I believe that is due to two primary factors - 1) continued immigration from Russia and the corresponding concern to meet the needs of new and recent immigrants, and 2) historically, during Communism, ROCOR saw its mission largely in terms of preserving everything it had received from pre-Revolutionary Russia without change, so that if Communism succeeded in wiping out the Faith in Russia, ROCOR could transplant it back to Russia completely intact.

Alongside the felt responsibility to preserve the Russian Orthodox tradition entire and without addition or subtraction, there was also a desire to missionize. St. John the Wonderworker of ROCOR was known for his love for and veneration of pre-Schism Western saints and when he was a bishop in Western Europe he was very fond of learning about and telling others about the local Orthodox saints of these countries. St. John also was interested in Pre-Schism Western Rites, as can be seen in his support of the French Orthodox Church and its use of the Divine Liturgy of St. Germanus of Paris. This French Orthodox Church did not bear fruit after St. John’s repose, but he encouraged them while he was alive. I believe ROCOR was the first local Orthodox Church to add pre-Schism Western saints to its liturgical calendar.

Now, it is true that the veneration of pre-Schism Western saints is not the same as reviving and using a Western Rite. There are a number of issues that continue to be hotly debated on the subject, even within ROCOR, and while the bishops have permitted the use of a Western Rite in some places, its actual use in ROCOR is rather marginal. A good article on the subject by a ROCOR priest can be read from the following link:

I was a bit offended by this article. Written by someone who admits never being non-Orthodox, his article drips with "if it's good enough for me, it's good enough for you". His original intent "it's not the glass, it's the wine" is destroyed with his insistence that any other rites are unnecessary, and even went so far to allude revival of any rite will lead to said groups lack of orthodoxy and ultimate destruction.

Always remember that one of the great founding monasteries of Mount Athos was Amalfion - a Western Rite monastery.

Amalfion Benedictine Monastery on Mount Athos

In his Amalfion Western Rite Monastery of Mt Athos, Fr Aidan Keller gives a fascinating history of this Benedictine monastery that existed on Mt. Athos from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries. Today only the tower remains amidst its snake infested ruins. Read the online text here in pdf format:

Fr Aidan is a Sarum Rite monk (cum Byzantine Rite) who, with his fellow monk Abbot David, was received into the Russian Church Abroad from the Synod of Milan. During his years in Milan Fr Aidan worked with such as the now Bishop Jerome of Manhattan (ROCA) on translating the Sarum liturgical books and his Sarum publications are approved for sale at ROCA book outlets.

The writer of the article is rabidly anti-western Rite. I know him. I am afraid that jah777 may also be anti-western rite - it is strange how on these threads we can never just discuss western rite - there are always a couple of "anti" people who thrust their way in. The bishops have not "permitted its use in some places" the SYNOD has made Western Rite universal in ROCOR and placed it stavropigially under the Metropolitan. The Metropolitan recently spent a short retreat in a Western Rite monastery and has officiated at a number of Western Rite services - at several of which I was the celebrant. He came to England late last year and directed that we start Western Rite missions there. It may be small - but not marginal - and it is growing. We don't however advertise our activities much - we are missionary - to the non-Orthodox.

ROCOR does indeed have the Western Rite - it is largely led by three Western Rite monasteries. I am the head of one such monastery and the Primate of ROCOR has personally placed me in charge of stavropigial Western Rite missions in the British Isles. We presently have Western Rite missions in Canada, the USA, the Philippines, Australia and England. There are non-monastic parishes in the USA which answer directly to the Metropolitan or Bishop Peter. ROCOR can do this because ROCOR is strongly bound to Orthodox tradition - and Orthodoxy had Western Rite within its boundaries for much longer than it was absent. It was only absent from approximately 1300 to 1870. Always remember that one of the great founding monasteries of Mount Athos was Amalfion - a Western Rite monastery.

Many years!

May God give you a bountiful harvest!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't know much about ROCOR, and there is no such church anywhere near where I live. So all I know about ROCOR is what I read online. What I've learned from that is that most of their churches are firmly committed to preserving Russian culture and using the Slavonic language in their liturgy.

In the US there are a number of English language mission parishes which are typically led by non-Russian convert priests, but in almost every case it is only the language that is different in these parishes. ROCOR has actually led the way in translating services into English for use in parishes and is the only jurisdiction I am aware of in the US that has translated and published the entire Menaion and Octoechos in English, among other important texts.

No, other jurisdictions have their translations, but to go on on that would derail this thread.

Most of the parishes in the US and abroad are probably Slavonic but I believe that is due to two primary factors - 1) continued immigration from Russia and the corresponding concern to meet the needs of new and recent immigrants, and 2) historically, during Communism, ROCOR saw its mission largely in terms of preserving everything it had received from pre-Revolutionary Russia without change, so that if Communism succeeded in wiping out the Faith in Russia, ROCOR could transplant it back to Russia completely intact.

There was plenty that should have changed in pre-Revolutionary Russia. Because it didn't contributed to the success of the Bolsheviks.

Alongside the felt responsibility to preserve the Russian Orthodox tradition entire and without addition or subtraction, there was also a desire to missionize. St. John the Wonderworker of ROCOR was known for his love for and veneration of pre-Schism Western saints and when he was a bishop in Western Europe he was very fond of learning about and telling others about the local Orthodox saints of these countries. St. John also was interested in Pre-Schism Western Rites, as can be seen in his support of the French Orthodox Church and its use of the Divine Liturgy of St. Germanus of Paris. This French Orthodox Church did not bear fruit after St. John’s repose, but he encouraged them while he was alive. I believe ROCOR was the first local Orthodox Church to add pre-Schism Western saints to its liturgical calendar.

Now, it is true that the veneration of pre-Schism Western saints is not the same as reviving and using a Western Rite. There are a number of issues that continue to be hotly debated on the subject, even within ROCOR, and while the bishops have permitted the use of a Western Rite in some places, its actual use in ROCOR is rather marginal. A good article on the subject by a ROCOR priest can be read from the following link:

For the sake of those new to the Church, it would also be helpful to speak of the arguments against. These are not often expressed, all the more so when the arguments come from experience and observation of reality. What are these arguments?

Hardly. They are shouted from the rooftops. Most "of those new to the Church" are not even aware WRO exist, and many Orthodox would like to keep it that way.

Quote

Moreover, if great attention is paid to rites, this leads to ritualism, a particular danger in High Church Anglicanism or Anglo-Catholicism.

Given the scandel of the Old Ritualist schism, and the ferocity that the offical Church pursued this, this is rather rich.

Quote

Inevitably, this resulted in ritualism, the study of dead rites and attempts to revive them through a sort of artificial respiration. Most people find any ritualism irrelevant to their daily lives and boring. They say: Why have another rite in Orthodoxy when we have perfectly good ones already? Why try to breathe life into what has been long dead? Why such interest in the glass, when it is only the wine that is interesting?

The strangling of the rites of Alexandria and Antioch, received of the Apostles (unlike that of Constantinople), only as late as 1200-that's ritualism. Why kill what is alive?If the glass is so opaque that you can't see the wine, you probably won't drink it.

Quote

In answer to this last question, we come to a second argument. This is the argument that ‘Western ritualists’ are placing their local culture higher than Church culture.

Given the ethnocentrism and phyletism rampant in the Orthodox Church (and espeically in pre-Revolutionary Russia, ask an Orthodox Georgian, Finn of Moldavian), is also rather rich.

Quote

Thus, the concept of a Western rite simply prolongs the East-West myth, beloved of the condemned Anglican branch theory, which heretically declares that the Orthodox Church is merely an ‘Eastern’ Church (and its rites ‘Eastern’ rites and not universal rites) and that the ‘other half of the Church’ is ‘Western’

And the mentality exprressed in the article mimics that of the Vatican on its Latin Mass, hardly a "branch theory," but no less heretical.

Quote

The concept of a Western rite suggests heretically that the Universal Orthodox Church is incomplete. The Western rite places a local culture, specifically a Western one, one which a thousand years ago fell away from the Church, above the catholicity and universality of the Church.

A thousand years ago the DL of St. John, St. Basil, St. Gregory and St. James were not the only ones in regular use by the EO: both Alexandria and Antioch still had theirs (for Antioch St. James was the usually DL). If the catholicity and universality of the Church cannot embrace all local cultures, but has to suppress them in favor of an idealized one (whether that is Roman Constantinople or Czarist Moscow/St. Petersburg doesn't matter), it is incomplete, a heresy no better than the Ultramontanism of the Vatican that we condemn. And after the Western Captivity of the Church, any talk of the Western culture falling away from the Church has no legs.

Quote

Is this talk of ‘Western rite’ simply not all Western chauvinism, racism, the usual Western feeling of ‘superiority’ to the rest of humanity?

Xenophobia and an inferiority complex here is talking.

Quote

Siberian peoples, Chinese, Aleuts, Japanese, Kikuyus, Indonesians and Thais all use the rites of the Orthodox Church. What is so special about ‘Westerners’ that they need some special rite?

Nothing. The Arabs, Syrians, and Egyptians should have theirs back. The Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians, Indians and Armenians should keep theirs. The Westerners should revive theirs. The Siberian peoples, Chinese, Aleuts, Japanese, Kikuyus, Indonesians and Thais either did not develop in Christendom, or entered it via the Constantinopolitan rite (though the Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians and Thais entered through the Western rite).

Quote

Orthodox Christianity is a whole way of life, not a rite taken from a manuscript celebrated inside a church building for two hours a week. Orthodox Christianity has to be transmitted from generation to generation down the centuries by families and monasteries, it cannot be invented from manuscript studies of a dead ‘rite’.

Coming from a representative of the Nikonian rite, this is also quite rich.And the WRO have more than manuscripts.

During the Henotikon, Ekthesis, Iconoclast Emperors, etc. much of that whole way of life was passed down and transmitted by heretics. Btw, in the meantime, the Western rite managed to be transmitted by Western Orthodox.

Quote

Fourthly, when the term ‘Western rite’ is used, of which Western rite is revival meant? The Roman rite? The Gallican? The Ambrosian? The Mozarabic? Or some later version based on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer?

When in Rome...In France the Gallican, hence the term. The Ambrosian has a continuous existence in Milan, the Mozarabic in Toledo. The WRO (and Anglican Usage under the Vatican) may soon be the only living BCP. Not a terribly difficult question. Only for those who don't know what language to use.

Quote

How can a rite be restored anyway? Surely a rite must be living, practised in continuity? Would any restored rite not be artificial, self-conscious, unnatural?

LOL. Archp. Avvakum Petrov is wagging his finger from the grave.

Quote

In the year 2009, most Western Europeans never set foot in any Church and 99% of practising Non-Orthodox have no historic rite at all.

The Poles are constantly in their church (far more than any Orthodox country, although Orthodox Romania, Macedonia, Georgia surpass Poland in the percentage of those who place imporance of religion in their life, even rising in Romania and Greece), using their historic Tridentine rite. Ireland has the highest church attendance in the world, surpassed only by Nigeria. It would be nice if its own Celtic rite was revived.

Quote

For me, as for 99.99% of Western Europeans, though for different reasons, the term ‘Western rite’ is meaningless. I have never known any other rites than those used by the Orthodox Church, since I have never been Anglican or Roman Catholic....For Western Orthodox like us, we already have ‘Western’ rites. These are the universal rites of the Orthodox Church, used in Western European languages and also in services to the local Western saints. We need nothing more, for us the ‘Western rite’ is already here and in regular use.

Is he Western Orthodox, or just in exile in the West?

Quote

Certainly, the example of ECOF, the so-called ‘French Orthodox Catholic Church’, founded under Mgr Jean (Kovalevsky) and once several hundred strong, sends shudders down the backs of canonical Orthodox who had experience of it.

Need we run through the names of Eastern rite non-canonical Orthodox groups which send shudders down anyone's spine?

Quote

Surely a Western rite would only ever attract a small minority of old-fashioned Roman Catholics or Anglicans?

Wrong. I've met Americanized people of Eastern background that went from Eastern rite to WRO. Better that then going Episcopalian or Methodist, the usual fate of those who tire of ghetto parishes.

Quote

They would be unable to integrate organic Orthodoxy and be unable to transmit anything to the next generation or anyone else outside their closed ‘ritual’ group. These would inevitably be cut off from mainstream Orthodox and find their services ignored by them, as if they belonged to an uncanonical sect.

Only if the Eastern Orthodox try to induce them into building their own ghetto, to match the several the Easterns have carved out for themselves.

Quote

However, the fact that this small group later left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in order to go onto the Roman Catholic Easter, sailed through many jurisdictions, causing many scandals, degenerated into ECOF and all but died out at the end of the twentieth century, makes for sobering thoughts.

Can we go through the Eastern Vagantes groups?

Quote

Today Roman Catholics and Anglicans do not have serious, historic rites. Time and again I meet Roman Catholics who come to the Orthodox liturgy and say: ‘At least you have ‘a real mass’, what we have is insulting’. Is there then any actual need for or interest in reviving a ‘Western rite’, even if it were possible?

Evidently yes. The old Prayer Book generation hasn't died out, nor the Tridentine generation. Many are ending up WRO.

Quote

Whatever reservations most Orthodox have, it must be said that bishops can give their blessing for the formation and practice of a Western rite in the Orthodox Churches. This is if they consider it pastorally necessary, if, in other words, there are people who can be brought into genuine Orthodoxy through it.

Is he confusing "genuine" with "Eastern."

Quote

Despite all manner of disadvantages and difficulties, a ‘Western rite’ could perhaps fill a temporary pastoral need for some specific small groups.

Or the WRO can come of age and take its palce alongside Constantinople, and hopefully soon a revived Alexandria and Antioch.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree that the lack of knowledge ad respect for western rites is frustrating. In fact, this is unfortunately a contributing factor to my lack of conversion to orthodoxy. I'll get more into that later. (deep thoughts with azurestone...)

Everyone here is familiar with the "tridintine" mass. However, what is less know is the Book of Common Prayer. The original (1549) version if the BCP was an English revision of the Sarum rite, i.e. The Latin rite that was in use throughout England at that time. The British used the Sarum rite until under King Edward VI At that time, a revision of the absurdly complex rite from Latin to English was accomplished resulting in the BCP. The 1928 version that Continuing Anglican churches use is an American revision of this (as opposed to the Episcopal 70s version).

To me, a rite is a type of art (human expression). Through our rites we pray and glorify God. Therefore, the desire of resurrecting rites that have been suppressed is something that should be pursued. The Orthodox did their suppression of rites, well, so did the Catholics. Hence, the Tridentine mass being the most prominent. Even if we can't resurrect a rite completely, what is wrong with patching the holes ourselves? We know what is proper respect and worship. Anyways, I'm rambling.

When I read articles like that one, I'm pushed toward Rome. Reason being, I see it as steadfast pride. Pride is supposed to be the origin of sin. If pride is the reason for rite suppression, jurisdiction disagreement, and lack of mission, then I want no part of it. Thankfully, I get to hear opposing voices like you against this article, as well as the Russian Patriarch on the Orthodox need for missionary work. So who knows which direction I'll take.

I agree that the lack of knowledge ad respect for western rites is frustrating. In fact, this is unfortunately a contributing factor to my lack of conversion to orthodoxy. I'll get more into that later. (deep thoughts with azurestone...)

Everyone here is familiar with the "tridintine" mass. However, what is less know is the Book of Common Prayer. The original (1549) version if the BCP was an English revision of the Sarum rite, i.e. The Latin rite that was in use throughout England at that time. The British used the Sarum rite until under King Edward VI At that time, a revision of the absurdly complex rite from Latin to English was accomplished resulting in the BCP. The 1928 version that Continuing Anglican churches use is an American revision of this (as opposed to the Episcopal 70s version).

To me, a rite is a type of art (human expression). Through our rites we pray and glorify God. Therefore, the desire of resurrecting rites that have been suppressed is something that should be pursued. The Orthodox did their suppression of rites, well, so did the Catholics. Hence, the Tridentine mass being the most prominent. Even if we can't resurrect a rite completely, what is wrong with patching the holes ourselves? We know what is proper respect and worship. Anyways, I'm rambling.

When I read articles like that one, I'm pushed toward Rome. Reason being, I see it as steadfast pride. Pride is supposed to be the origin of sin. If pride is the reason for rite suppression, jurisdiction disagreement, and lack of mission, then I want no part of it. Thankfully, I get to hear opposing voices like you against this article, as well as the Russian Patriarch on the Orthodox need for missionary work. So who knows which direction I'll take.

My 5 cents. Whole nickel today.

Btw, just so it is clear, I am not WRO. Being Arab and having two sons who are also Romanian, I am firmly Eastern Rite. I just see no reason why everyone has to. Wasn't that way under the Apostles and for over a millenium. No reason now.

As for "patching holes," the revival of the Patriarch in the Patriarchate of Moscow plugged a big hole worn into the Russian Church for two centuries. So too the revival of the Churches of Georgia, Serbia and Bulgaria.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Btw, just so it is clear, I am not WRO. Being Arab and having two sons who are also Romanian, I am firmly Eastern Rite. I just see no reason why everyone has to. Wasn't that way under the Apostles and for over a millenium. No reason now.

As for "patching holes," the revival of the Patriarch in the Patriarchate of Moscow plugged a big hole worn into the Russian Church for two centuries. So too the revival of the Churches of Georgia, Serbia and Bulgaria.

Is there any plans to bring these Western Rite Priests to those in the State of Virginia? I would be 'very' interested personally. I am interested in Orthodoxy but I chaff from leaving Western Tradition. A Western Rite Parish would be very welcoming to those of us who are attracted to Orthodoxy but who continue to be very Western in Tradition.

Thank you for your labor.

Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Is there any plans to bring these Western Rite Priests to those in the State of Virginia? I would be 'very' interested personally. I am interested in Orthodoxy but I chaff from leaving Western Tradition. A Western Rite Parish would be very welcoming to those of us who are attracted to Orthodoxy but who continue to be very Western in Tradition.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is there any plans to bring these Western Rite Priests to those in the State of Virginia? I would be 'very' interested personally. I am interested in Orthodoxy but I chaff from leaving Western Tradition. A Western Rite Parish would be very welcoming to those of us who are attracted to Orthodoxy but who continue to be very Western in Tradition.

I know a little about the Western Rite in ROCOR.This link to photos of the Mass at St.Benedict's (ROCOR) Western Rite Church in Oklahoma shows some good photos to give an idea about what the Western Rite Orthodox Altar looks like during Mass. Personally I tend to be more sympathetic to the Western Rite in ROCOR as it is generally more Traditional, and occasionally uses Latin, and part of me will always look back with fondness upon the times when I attended Latin Mass at Traditionalist Roman Catholic parishes. However I was happy to read that St.Marks (AOA) in Denver has Sung Latin Mass on Saturdays!

I know a little about the Western Rite in ROCOR.This link to photos of the Mass at St.Benedict's (ROCOR) Western Rite Church in Oklahoma...

Have you been there?

Unfortunately no.It would be nice to drive down to there but don't really have the time or money right now. I have to admit my only knowledge of the Western Rite Orthodox comes from books, online, and a friend I had a few years ago who was a member of St.Augustine's Western Rite Church in Denver (AOA). My personal knowledge of the Latin Mass is limited to attendance at Tridentine Rite Latin Masses at churches link with the RC Institute of Christ the King, Society of St.Peter, and SSPX. I've read about the Sedevacantists, Bishop Dolan for example, who use older missals from before the RC liturgical reforms under Pius XII in the 1950's but still for anyone who wants to really study Western Rite liturgics as used by the Roman Catholic Church you have to keep in mind when reading these arguments about whether the pre-1950's Mass was better than that found in the 1962 Missal used by the organizations I listed above (ICK, SSP, SSPX) that even earlier Pope St.Pius X, the arch-conservative, yielded to pressure from liberals to reform the Breviary substantially from what you find in the Breviary used under Leo XIII and before. To really get back to the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church in the West as it existed before the Great Schism of 1054 requires a great deal of study and work. However I still think that in terms of legitimacy and for the sake of truly resurrecting the Western Orthodox Rite/s this work should be done instead of doing what is done now where we simply use the 20th Century versions of the Western Rite used by Anglo-Catholics and Traditionalist Roman Catholics. Personally I would also like us to use the original Ecclesiastical Latin these rites were celebrated in as well.

The problem with that is that the point of the Western Rite is not to "resurrect" ancient rites and to celebrate them as they were pre-Schism. That's called "liturgical archaeology" and it does nothing more than show "how things used to be" at one point in time. Very interesting, perhaps, but ultimately it's inauthentic.

The usage of current rites is done because liturgies are living things, they evolve and develop as they are kept alive by the people using them, in order to continue to speak to them and express their culture. They meet the needs of the people using them. Insisting the pre-Schism rites be used neglects this very important aspect of what a liturgy is supposed to do.

That being said, fortunately the rites that have been approved didn't change much after the Schism and their structural integrity remained intact, so they still closely resemble the ancient rites in virtually every way. And because of their continuous use by the bodies that developed them, they continue to speak to the modern Western mind.

I believe it is essencial to have WRO Liturgies which are simply orthodox. If they are entirely pre-1054 or with some later bits mixed in, is of lesser importance. Of course, the ideal situation would be to have them based only on pre-schism liturgical materials, as is the case with the ROCOR Liturgies of Sarum and Mt. Royal.

The problem with that is that the point of the Western Rite is not to "resurrect" ancient rites and to celebrate them as they were pre-Schism. That's called "liturgical archaeology" and it does nothing more than show "how things used to be" at one point in time. Very interesting, perhaps, but ultimately it's inauthentic.

The usage of current rites is done because liturgies are living things, they evolve and develop as they are kept alive by the people using them, in order to continue to speak to them and express their culture. They meet the needs of the people using them. Insisting the pre-Schism rites be used neglects this very important aspect of what a liturgy is supposed to do.

That being said, fortunately the rites that have been approved didn't change much after the Schism and their structural integrity remained intact, so they still closely resemble the ancient rites in virtually every way. And because of their continuous use by the bodies that developed them, they continue to speak to the modern Western mind.

Liturgical Archaeology is not at all the same as the French Orthodox Church using the Gallican Rite! or the Irish Orthodox who were approved by the MP to use the Stowe Missal! What is so bad about it? Using a liturgy from a thousand years ago is not the same as replacing a car for a chariot! This is an absurd argument by those in the AOA Western Rite coming from Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism who want to simply continue using the Masses they associate with the good Ol' days before the outbreak of the liturgical reforms ushered in by Vatican II and the liberal social reforms that have become so evident in the Anglican churches. In spite of my language I am very sympathetic to them but nostalgia for the old days when the Mass was more traditional is not at all the same as using the real Western Orthodox Rites!

Quote

And because of their continuous use by the bodies that developed them, they continue to speak to the modern Western mind.

What are these "bodies"? the heretical Latins? This is basically racialism to state that the Western Mind is spoken to by the Western Rite! I am of mixed French, Ashkenaz, and Native American descent so perhaps a new "Multi-cultural" rite should be invented to speak to my mind? This is a terrible argument. I was married in a Serbian Church, have attended Russian Churches, Greek Churches, "Convert" Greek Rite Churches, Syrian Greek Rite Churches, Churches with converts, Romanians, Syrians, Greeks, Serbs, Russians and Georgians all worshipping together! I don't believe there is such a thing as a Western Mind in that it cannot be spoken to just as well as it could be by the Eastern Rites! Vulgar Racialism be damned!Let me also ask.

Quote

That being said, fortunately the rites that have been approved didn't change much after the Schism and their structural integrity remained intact, so they still closely resemble the ancient rites in virtually every way.

Why is it so bad to use the Rites of Western Europe as they existed before 1054 if, as you say, they changed so little? I think I should state that what you are stating about these rites changing so little since 1054 is simply not true. The rites, the rubrics especially, Church interior architecture, and the devotional practices have changed a great deal.

Quote

The usage of current rites is done because liturgies are living things, they evolve and develop as they are kept alive by the people using them, in order to continue to speak to them and express their culture. They meet the needs of the people using them. Insisting the pre-Schism rites be used neglects this very important aspect of what a liturgy is supposed to do.

What specifically is Russian or Greek about the Typikons they use? Yes, chant and architecture can express a culture but that doesn't make them un-useable by people converting from other cultures! However the Rites themselves are really universal! They express our Orthodox Faith not our culture!This is the garbage that the reforming spirit of Vatican II has sowed in the heads of so many that it is scary to me. The Liturgy was given by God for the Church. Man must conform himself to God NOT the other way around. We do not fashion and mold the Liturgy according to our needs! Whatever condescenions the Church allows to the people, such as liturgical reforms, is under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit. The West, the Latins/Roman Catholics, ceased to be the Church so whatever lilturgical changes were made were not guided by the Holy Spirit and couldn't be said to have come from God nor could they be legitimate for Orthodox Christians.

What are these "bodies"? the heretical Latins? This is basically racialism to state that the Western Mind is spoken to by the Western Rite! ... I don't believe there is such a thing as a Western Mind in that it cannot be spoken to just as well as it could be by the Eastern Rites! Vulgar Racialism be damned!

Unfortunately such racialism seems to be a common argument in favor of the "Western Rite."

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

I believe it is essencial to have WRO Liturgies which are simply orthodox. If they are entirely pre-1054 or with some later bits mixed in, is of lesser importance. Of course, the ideal situation would be to have them based only on pre-schism liturgical materials, as is the case with the ROCOR Liturgies of Sarum and Mt. Royal.

But you have to understand the individual motives of many in the Western Rite. Several are in love with the Medieval West AFTER 1054 (Crusades, Knights, Giotto, Franciscans, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc.) Personally I do greatly admire the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, he opposed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but still do not consider him to be saint, he tricked Abelard with lies instead of debating him. I'm no fan of Abelard but I think Bernards lying to ambush him was morally reprehensible.

Quote

the ideal situation would be to have them based only on pre-schism liturgical materials

Thanks for stating this!The further back you go you really see that before the heresies that led to Roman Catholic Schism from the True Church you see the West was not very different from the East.

Liturgical Archaeology is not at all the same as the French Orthodox Church using the Gallican Rite! [...] What is so bad about it?

Well, some experts point out that the contemporary Liturgy of St. Germanus is merely what the ancient one might have looked like. (I do realize that St. John the Wonderworker approved the text but we have to remember that he wasn't a liturgist.)

But you have to understand the individual motives of many in the Western Rite. Several are in love with the Medieval West AFTER 1054 (Crusades, Knights, Giotto, Franciscans, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc.)

I know what you're talking about. Even Thomas Aquinas can be added to the list. But this is characteristic only for the AWRV and only for some of its members.

Liturgical Archaeology is not at all the same as the French Orthodox Church

And what happened to L'ECOF?

Quote

What is so bad about it?

I didn't say anything was bad about it, it's just not ideal.

Quote

Using a liturgy from a thousand years ago is not the same as replacing a car for a chariot!

I have no idea what this means.

Quote

This is an absurd argument by those in the AOA Western Rite coming from Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism who want to simply continue using the Masses they associate with the good Ol' days before the outbreak of the liturgical reforms ushered in by Vatican II and the liberal social reforms that have become so evident in the Anglican churches.

Oh, I had no idea you had the gift of clairvoyance! Your ability to know the thoughts and motives of every Anglican and Roman Catholic convert is truly astonishing.

Truly though, this exposes your lack of understanding in to what really went into the Antiochian Western Rites. Best to not speak of things you aren't aware of.

Quote

In spite of my language I am very sympathetic to them but nostalgia for the old days when the Mass was more traditional is not at all the same as using the real Western Orthodox Rites!

Again, I'm so thrilled that we've finally found someone who knows what the "real Western Orthodox Rites" are; please, email Met. PHILIP and let him know so his sheep stop using non-Orthodox rites! And please, say a prayer to St. Tikhon letting him know he was out of his mind in even considering the Anglican communion service!

Quote

What are these "bodies"? the heretical Latins? This is basically racialism to state that the Western Mind is spoken to by the Western Rite!

Yes, the heretical Latins. And "the West" is not a race. It's a culture, and if you know anything about rites, you'd know that culture is what produced them.

Quote

I am of mixed French, Ashkenaz, and Native American descent so perhaps a new "Multi-cultural" rite should be invented to speak to my mind?

Ideally, every culture would have their own indigenous rite.

Quote

I don't believe there is such a thing as a Western Mind in that it cannot be spoken to just as well as it could be by the Eastern Rites! Vulgar Racialism be damned!

Let me also ask. Why is it so bad to use the Rites of Western Europe as they existed before 1054 if, as you say, they changed so little? I think I should state that what you are stating about these rites changing so little since 1054 is simply not true. The rites, the rubrics especially, Church interior architecture, and the devotional practices have changed a great deal.

Because there is nothing magical about 1054 and you can feel free to compare the rites yourself; what I say is indeed true. There is not one element of the approved Antiochian liturgies that does not find its roots in the pre-Schism West, thanks be to God.

And it's funny that you mention rubrics, because that is one of the main reasons we don't use the ancient rites; it's not clear what they were.

Quote

They express our Orthodox Faith not our culture! The Liturgy was given by God for the Church. Man must conform himself to God NOT the other way around. We do not fashion and mold the Liturgy according to our needs! Whatever condescenions the Church allows to the people, such as liturgical reforms, is under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit. The West, the Latins/Roman Catholics, ceased to be the Church so whatever lilturgical changes were made were not guided by the Holy Spirit and couldn't be said to have come from God nor could they be legitimate for Orthodox Christians.

I have emailed Met. PHILIP, expect a response immediately so we can get things straightened out. Where have you been all these years?!

I think Fr. John Meyendorff says it well, "Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many."

He was a member of the original Western Rite Commission and this is exactly what the approved rites in the Antiochian Archdiocese accomplish.

This is the exact thinking that makes me suspicious of the Western rite. Why shouldn't I start clamouring for my own Chinese-American rite?

Why would that make you suspicious?

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle. If we promote WR on the principle that it somehow accomodates this "Western" culture better than the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we can just as well elaborate liturgies for every other "culture" too.

Quote

What culture is Chinese-American?

The culture of Chinese-Americans?

Quote

If there is a Chinese Christian Rite, it could most certainly be used. Unless you feel more comfortable in a western rite.

I feel comfortable with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It may have been produced and refined in cultures different from my own, but its beauty and truth are universal, and I do not feel like I am attending something foreign.

I find it funny that people think that Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc. are all the same "culture."

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

This is the exact thinking that makes me suspicious of the Western rite. Why shouldn't I start clamouring for my own Chinese-American rite?

Fr. David Abramtsov puts it well, "Unless a truly indigenous African Liturgy can be foreseen, a truly indigenous Indian and Chinese Liturgy, composed according to the one unique structure of the Liturgy (a structure imposed interiorly, having its source in dogmatic and mystical theology—in the true sense of those words—and not exteriorly by stifling the life of other Liturgies, as was the case historically speaking, where St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy is concerned), the truly Orthodox vision of the world has not yet been seen. Uniformity, imposition, external authority are the death of Orthodoxy, for she is a precious box encrusted with a thousand different (but equally lovely) jewels, each of which reflects the light of truth in a manner particular and unique."

This is what Orthodoxy does, it infiltrates a culture. Surely you realize that "Eastern" Orthodoxy and the rites used by the "Eastern" Orthodox churches are what this is? They are the rites and customs that were brought to fruition as the Faith took root in the Eastern cultures.

Guided by the Holy Spirit? Sure. But we need to realize that rites are not "top down" entities that were crafted by God and delivered to us. They are, rather, "bottom up" entities, produced by the people of a culture as they incarnate the Faith.

We are not creating rites out of thin air. Rites are an organic development, and the fact that the Eastern Rites and the Western Rites were so different shows that culture is one of the defining aspects of creating these expressions. Why is it suspicious that those of us in the West, who are products of Western culture, want to worship according to the rites that our culture produced? Rites, mind you, that were guided by the Holy Spirit, just as in the East. Rites that produced countless saints now interceding for us. What could possibly be suspect about that?

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle.

And yet this is precisely what we see in the early Church. Why on earth is this absurd???

Quote

If we promote WR on the principle that it somehow accomodates this "Western" culture better than the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we can just as well elaborate liturgies for every other "culture" too.

As rites organically become a part of a culture, this inevitably happens. Truly, why is this a problem for you?

Quote

I feel comfortable with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It may have been produced and refined in cultures different from my own, but its beauty and truth are universal, and I do not feel like I am attending something foreign.

As well it should be! But why can you not understand that there are, in fact, people who do find the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy foreign? Whether or not it is beautiful and expresses universal truth is beside the point. The ancient Western Rites did this as well...

Quote

I find it funny that people think that Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc. are all the same "culture."

People don't. At least I hope not! But the Eastern Rites are what organically came to these places and they are what shaped the culture. This happened in the West too, and we simply want to worship according to our own organic cultural/spiritual heritage.

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle. If we promote WR on the principle that it somehow accomodates this "Western" culture better than the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we can just as well elaborate liturgies for every other "culture" too.

Quote

What culture is Chinese-American?

The culture of Chinese-Americans?

Quote

If there is a Chinese Christian Rite, it could most certainly be used. Unless you feel more comfortable in a western rite.

I feel comfortable with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It may have been produced and refined in cultures different from my own, but its beauty and truth are universal, and I do not feel like I am attending something foreign.

I find it funny that people think that Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc. are all the same "culture."

For one, it's difficult to use the melting pot of America to identify a cultural rite, unless you speak of a more non-denominational rite, something I don't think anyone looks for.

You may feel comfortable with that liturgy, but there are many who are connected to their liturgy by culture. For example, I find going to an Anglican liturgy is extremely romantic and nostalgic for me. Everyone is different.

The big point really is not that every culture need a rite, but every culture and people have a RIGHT to their own rite. It's not one man-made Rite over another that's holy. The Rite is just the glass. It's what's in the glass (rite) that matters.

Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc didn't all use to have the same rite. You should know they once all had their own individual rites at one time until the push from Constantinople.

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle.

And yet this is precisely what we see in the early Church. Why on earth is this absurd???

Because no one sat down and said, "I'm going to put together a new liturgy to fit my culture."

Quote

As rites organically become a part of a culture, this inevitably happens. Truly, why is this a problem for you?

Sure, liturgical differences arise organically over time. They do not arise out of someone saying, "Now I'm going to put together/ resurrect a liturgy that conforms to my culture." The latter is what WR is doing.

Quote

But why can you not understand that there are, in fact, people who do find the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy foreign?

How is the WR any less foreign to the average Westerner today? We don't live in medieval times anymore. Unless you have a background in Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, you have no real cultural connection with the WR, and even to modern Anglicans and RC's, the WR looks strange. And I'm sure any liturgy looked pretty weird to newly evangelized people, whether they were the Irish or the Aleuts.

Quote

But the Eastern Rites are what organically came to these places and they are what shaped the culture. This happened in the West too, and we simply want to worship according to our own organic cultural/spiritual heritage.

There's nothing organic about lifting rites from Anglican or Roman Catholic service books and then editing them to make them Orthodox. The Western Orthodox culture was extinguished centuries ago. How are Westerners, today, coming to Orthodoxy? Through the efforts of Orthodox bishops in the "Eastern" tradition, the only one that survived. So the "organic" thing to do would be to attend the liturgy brought by those bishops and priests, not resurrect a dead letter. If, over time, the liturgy acquires some local aspects, that's fine.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle. If we promote WR on the principle that it somehow accomodates this "Western" culture better than the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we can just as well elaborate liturgies for every other "culture" too.

Quote

What culture is Chinese-American?

The culture of Chinese-Americans?

Quote

If there is a Chinese Christian Rite, it could most certainly be used. Unless you feel more comfortable in a western rite.

I feel comfortable with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It may have been produced and refined in cultures different from my own, but its beauty and truth are universal, and I do not feel like I am attending something foreign.

I find it funny that people think that Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc. are all the same "culture."

For one, it's difficult to use the melting pot of America to identify a cultural rite, unless you speak of a more non-denominational rite, something I don't think anyone looks for.

The same can be said for the "West."

Quote

You may feel comfortable with that liturgy, but there are many who are connected to their liturgy by culture. For example, I find going to an Anglican liturgy is extremely romantic and nostalgic for me. Everyone is different.

So we should devise rites based on personal sentiment and feelings. Okay.

Quote

The Rite is just the glass. It's what's in the glass (rite) that matters.

And look how the contemporary RCC has exemplified this attitude.

Quote

Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc didn't all use to have the same rite.

The Syrians had their own rite, but it wasn't because someone said, "I want a Syrian rite."

Quote

You should know they once all had their own individual rites at one time until the push from Constantinople.

I am aware of that. The forced uniformity is unfortunate but that is far in the past now. If someone wanted to resurrect a Syrian or Georgian rite today, it would be just as bad.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle.

And yet this is precisely what we see in the early Church. Why on earth is this absurd???

Because no one sat down and said, "I'm going to put together a new liturgy to fit my culture."

Quote

As rites organically become a part of a culture, this inevitably happens. Truly, why is this a problem for you?

Sure, liturgical differences arise organically over time. They do not arise out of someone saying, "Now I'm going to put together/ resurrect a liturgy that conforms to my culture." The latter is what WR is doing.

Quote

But why can you not understand that there are, in fact, people who do find the St. John Chrysostom Liturgy foreign?

How is the WR any less foreign to the average Westerner today? We don't live in medieval times anymore. Unless you have a background in Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism, you have no real cultural connection with the WR, and even to modern Anglicans and RC's, the WR looks strange. And I'm sure any liturgy looked pretty weird to newly evangelized people, whether they were the Irish or the Aleuts.

Quote

But the Eastern Rites are what organically came to these places and they are what shaped the culture. This happened in the West too, and we simply want to worship according to our own organic cultural/spiritual heritage.

There's nothing organic about lifting rites from Anglican or Roman Catholic service books and then editing them to make them Orthodox. The Western Orthodox culture was extinguished centuries ago. How are Westerners, today, coming to Orthodoxy? Through the efforts of Orthodox bishops in the "Eastern" tradition, the only one that survived. So the "organic" thing to do would be to attend the liturgy brought by those bishops and priests, not resurrect a dead letter. If, over time, the liturgy acquires some local aspects, that's fine.

People don't build a liturgy to 'fit their culture'. They build a liturgy, and their culture is naturally represented in it.

Western Rite won't be familiar to just those who use the Anglican or Latin liturgies. Lutherans, Methodist, and Presbyterians, to name a few, will find familiarity in the Western Rites. Why? Because they all have roots to either the Anglicans or Roman Catholics.

You don't realize just how little those books were edited. The Book of Common Prayer, I know, has only a few lines inserted for clarification.

Because every culture (what do we mean by "culture" anyway?) getting its own rite is an absurd principle. If we promote WR on the principle that it somehow accomodates this "Western" culture better than the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, then we can just as well elaborate liturgies for every other "culture" too.

Quote

What culture is Chinese-American?

The culture of Chinese-Americans?

Quote

If there is a Chinese Christian Rite, it could most certainly be used. Unless you feel more comfortable in a western rite.

I feel comfortable with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. It may have been produced and refined in cultures different from my own, but its beauty and truth are universal, and I do not feel like I am attending something foreign.

I find it funny that people think that Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Syrians, etc. are all the same "culture."

For one, it's difficult to use the melting pot of America to identify a cultural rite, unless you speak of a more non-denominational rite, something I don't think anyone looks for.

You may feel comfortable with that liturgy, but there are many who are connected to their liturgy by culture. For example, I find going to an Anglican liturgy is extremely romantic and nostalgic for me. Everyone is different.

So we should devise rites based on personal sentiment and feelings. Okay.

Thanks for the sarcasm. I get your point now...

Rites connect the people to God, if they are alienated from the Rite, they are alienated from God.

The Rite is just the glass. It's what's in the glass (rite) that matters.

And look how the contemporary RCC has exemplified this attitude.

You're more right than you know. Rome has changed the Novus Ordo Seclorum Mass to be more traditional, and in particular a direct translation from the Latin Rite. Why? Because too many rejected it for lacking the substance it should have.

Personally I would also like us to use the original Ecclesiastical Latin these rites were celebrated in as well.

I'm all for "liturgical archeology" and using pre-Schism liturgies of Old Rome but why an Earth use non-vernacular language. I could understand using some ancient form of vernacular as is case in several local churches but why to use Latin.

This is the exact thinking that makes me suspicious of the Western rite. Why shouldn't I start clamouring for my own Chinese-American rite?

I'm all for Chinese rite. However it takes time to evolve a completely new rite. Probably for hundreds of years. Perhaps when time passes and Church in China grows and gets stronger there will be a Chinese rite but for now there is no such thing. However there is already Western rite(s) so we don't have to evolve a completely new rite out of nothing. Your comparison doesn't work.

Western rite is part of the Tradition of the Churh and as an Orthodox Christians we are called to cultivate the Tradition. That's why we also should cultivate and preserve the Western rite. If it helps in missionary work that's all the better.

I have met people of western traditions that were interested in Orthodoxy, but found the Eastern liturgy a bit too foreign.

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

All these so called Western rite Orthodox Churches Are schisms Just waiting to Happen...Why Is Holy Orthodoxy Doing this ....I'm totally Against western rite Orthodox Churches....These so called western rites didn't work for the people then ,so why revive these failed rites...

Rome Got rid Of it's so called Older rites and went modern and it still didn't work Scandals were hidden under the old rites ...scandals everywhere and revealed after they introduced the new rite..,and England Has its own rite ,like that did it a Lotta Good ,Look whats happening to the church of England...

Why oh why revive dead rites ,they should remain buried.....Because By there Fruits you Shall Know them .... In My Book all western rites produce nothing but Bad Fruit....

Sleeper, why do respond with ad hominem attacks on me? Do you not care about the people you offend who are supposed to be your brothers in the One True Church?!My anger is not towards you but the arguments you make for the Western Rite as it exists in AOA and the Modernist/Liberal ideas behind several of them.

Such passionate opinions! You'd think the Antiochian Archdiocese would've chose you to form the Western Rite Commission!

Why do you think I am "passionate"? It is because the view you've imposed on the True Faith cannot include me as I have no Eastern or Western Mind. Why do say "I should know what you mean" when it comes to Racial/Cultural arguments? It is vulgar racialism to state that Liturgies are products of culture that are better for one culture or another. You should be more open to what I am saying being the in the Western Rite which the Roman Catholics successfully spread BEFORE Vatican II all over the world to different cultures and races on all populated continents! They spread the Tridentine Latin Mass to Africans and Chinese! One of the most prominent young members of SSPX, Traditionalist Roman Catholics, in the Kansas City Area is a Chinese-American! Frankly I have grown up in the "West" and I the feeling that other Rites are "too foreign" is simply superficiality at best and xenophobia at it's worst.

Quote

Oh, I had no idea you had the gift of clairvoyance! Your ability to know the thoughts and motives of every Anglican and Roman Catholic convert is truly astonishing. Truly though, this exposes your lack of understanding in to what really went into the Antiochian Western Rites. Best to not speak of things you aren't aware of.

Oh, and I had no idea that you knew all of the people in the Western Rite and verified that I am completely mistaken in my argument! How am I not aware of any of this? You don't even know me.When did I say that it was everyone in the Western Rite who I was describing?!I have several family members and friends who became Traditionalist Roman Catholics because they want the "good Ol' Latin Mass" again. Several of the people who got the Western Rite going were Anglo-Catholics who were nostalgic for the old days and after being dismayed at the course Anglicanism took during the Twentieth Century and studying and drawing closer to Orthodoxy converted but wanted the Anglican Mass they were comfortable with! This is common knowledge not me making things up! Also I have corresponded with many in the Western Rite over the past five years and was friends for several years with a former member of St.Augustines in Denver! He moved to Iowa City, IA to and taught at the University of IA attending the mission parish, St.Raphael of Brooklyn, that I did for several years. He told me that he and many others were partially motivated by a desire for the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II but also were interested in Orthodoxy and wanted the Tridentine Mass with the ld Rubrics but served in English.

Quote

Again, I'm so thrilled that we've finally found someone who knows what the "real Western Orthodox Rites" are; please, email Met. PHILIP and let him know so his sheep stop using non-Orthodox rites! And please, say a prayer to St. Tikhon letting him know he was out of his mind in even considering the Anglican communion service!

This is just plain rude!Met.Philip is not the most reputable bishop in terms of professing the Orthodox Faith or being familiar with the history of the Church in the West before the Schism, and has historically been more interested in "modernizing" the American AOA and amassing more and more converts by not requiring them to renounce and denounce their former heresies and profess the Orthodox Church as the One, True, Ark outside of which their is no Salvation.

Quote

Yes, the heretical Latins. And "the West" is not a race. It's a culture, and if you know anything about rites, you'd know that culture is what produced them.

Saying that culture produced the Rites is not True or Orthodox. The Churches guided by God the Holy Spirit developed the differences between the Rites guided by God not by the culture of the people. The differences developed as means to better convert and transform the people/culture. Read the Fathers, such as St.Basil, you would know that the Liturgy is of Apostolic origin and much about the Rites/Celebration of the Mysteries were intentionally cloaked in Silence so that the cultures and common people could not alter and corrupt them according to their passions.Heretical Latins did alter the rubrics and rites of the West. Where were all the pews and kneelers before the 16th Century? Prostrations and bows were always a part of the Church in the West before the Great Schism of 1054 and even after the Latin Heresy for hundreds of years.

Quote

Ideally, every culture would have their own indigenous rite.

This is an insane idea! There is nothing specifically Greek about the Greek Rite nor does it express their culture! What elements of pre-Christian Hellenic culture can you find in the Greek Rite other than language? What is Western, culturally, about the Mass of St.Gregory the Great? Cultures do not need indigenous rites! This is a heretical idea from the Vatican II spirit of reform.

Because there is nothing magical about 1054 and you can feel free to compare the rites yourself; what I say is indeed true. There is not one element of the approved Antiochian liturgies that does not find its roots in the pre-Schism West, thanks be to God.

And it's funny that you mention rubrics, because that is one of the main reasons we don't use the ancient rites; it's not clear what they were.

Quote

They express our Orthodox Faith not our culture! The Liturgy was given by God for the Church. Man must conform himself to God NOT the other way around. We do not fashion and mold the Liturgy according to our needs! Whatever condescenions the Church allows to the people, such as liturgical reforms, is under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit. The West, the Latins/Roman Catholics, ceased to be the Church so whatever lilturgical changes were made were not guided by the Holy Spirit and couldn't be said to have come from God nor could they be legitimate for Orthodox Christians.

Quote

I think Fr. John Meyendorff says it well, "Orthodox must witness to the authentic catholicity of the Church, its mission to all, its responsibility for saving the world, and its ability to assume and bless whatever is worth saving, especially when that assumption leads to the salvation of many."

I totally agree with this! But what many Orthodox disagree with is how much and what, if any, of the Western Rites of the early Twentieth Century should be/can be assumed into the Church?You cannot save people if they do not truly convert to the Church and disavow heresy and a way of life and worshipping that are expressions of that former heresy. Additionally Fr.Meyendorff was not a truly Orthodox Theologian and even fellow Ecumenist theologian Romanides has proven his theology to at times be blatantly false and often more in line with the theology of the Roman Catholic Church post-Vatican II.

Brother I don't know how old you are, how long you've been Orthodox, etc. You can clearly see my age in my profile. I'm 27, I'm a Father & Husband whose been Orthodox for almost seven years. None of what I wrote previously was rude or ad hominem against you! Please at the very least extend me the same courtesy.I am a father & husband so I don't forsee that I will be able to keep up with the back and forth posting everyday but before I duck out for possibly a few days or more let me just request a few things.Pray for me and my family as I pray for yours, with no condescension nor anger nor dislike.If you ever move to an area where there are only Eastern Rite Churches will you still attend Church with the same piety and devotion for Christ? It may take time for you but I really think you would be surprised to find that with time you will no longer find it foreign to bow and kiss icons and make prostrations. It would take an essay for me to really respond to the ideas that you hold/have been taught, Sleeper, about the Liturgy and culture. I can't point to any book or essay off the top of my head but please stay open to the views and arguments of people you disagree with and recognize yourself as Orthodox and dedicate yourself to having an Orthodox Mindset. If the Western Mind is anything today it is certainly not Orthodox!

All these so called Western rite Orthodox Churches Are schisms Just waiting to Happen...Why Is Holy Orthodoxy Doing this ....I'm totally Against western rite Orthodox Churches....These so called western rite didn't work for the people then ,so why revive these failed rites...

Rome Got rid Of it's so called Older rites and went modern and it still didn't work Scandals were hidden under the old rites ...scandals everywhere and revealed after they introduced the new rite..,and England Has its own rite ,like that did it a Lotta Good ,Look whats happening to the church of England...

Why oh why revive dead rites ,they should remain buried.....Because By there Fruits you Shall Know them .... In My Book all western rites produce nothing but Bad Fruit....

Removed Personal Attack

This is a formal warning, do not attack posters personality. The correct way to engage a poster is via their arguments not via their personality. Future postings of this nature may result in further actions by the moderator staff.

The "West" today is no more a monolithic cultural entity than "America."

Quote

Rites connect the people to God, if they are alienated from the Rite, they are alienated from God.

If your cultural prejudice is so strong that it alienates you from a "foreign" service done in your own language, then the problem isn't the rite. If this attitude were more pervasive, the Church would never have gained converts. It is nothing but liturgical phyletism.

Quote

Rome has changed the Novus Ordo Seclorum [sic] Mass to be more traditional, and in particular a direct translation from the Latin Rite. Why? Because too many rejected it for lacking the substance it should have.

This is exactly opposite to your assertion that "the Rite is just a glass." After clown masses and liturgical dancers, some in the RCC are realizing that the Rite is not just a glass, that the reverence and beauty of a rite are intertwined with its outward expressions, and are therefore pushing for a return to the Tridentine mass. They are, however, a minority. The average RC parish has the same typical mediocrity.

Quote

The Syrians made a rite, and it necessarily reflected their culture... because a Syrian made it.

The Syrians never "made" a rite, they received one. Sometimes, pastors saw fit to edit or add things for specific reasons. It was done slowly and organically. Eventually we had an identifiably local rite.

Where was the modern WR received from? Did St. Patrick arise from the grave to deliver this?

« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 10:36:17 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake